CONSIDERATIONDECISION NOTICE
BREACH OF THE CODE FOUND BUT NO SANCTION
Reference: / 29296Complainant: / Mrs M Jessup
Subject Member: / Councillor Mrs Eathorne-Gibbons, Truro City Council
Person conducting
the Consideration: / Matthew Stokes, Corporate Governance, Property and Commercial Group Manager
Date of Consideration: / 2 May 2013
Summary of the allegations considered
The Complainant has alleged that Councillor Mrs Eathorne-Gibbons, who is a mutual neighbour to Mr and Mrs Jessup and a person who had a licence agreement to use Mrand Mrs Jessup’s garden and upon who Mr and Mrs Jessup had served a notice of termination; entered Mr and Mrs Jessup’s garden and intervened in an inappropriate manner on behalf of the person upon whom the notice had been served, and intimated that it would be difficult for Mr and Mrs Jessup to obtain planning permission for a change of use if they didn’t continue to allow the person the use of their garden. It is further alleged that Councillor Mrs Eathorne-Gibbons declared a non-pecuniary interest at the meeting of Truro City Council when the planning application was discussed but failed to leave the room.
Decision
That there has been a breach of paragraph 12(1) of the Code of Conduct by failing to withdraw from the room or chamber where a meeting considering the business in which the subject member had a prejudicial interest was being discussed.
Given that this is a minor procedural breach, that the complainant’s planning application has already been approved and the passage of time that has passed since the complaint was submitted, I do not consider it to be in the public interest to censure the subject member or apply any other sanction and so no further action will be taken on the complaint.
Reasons for the decision
In reaching the decision I have had full regard to the final Investigation Report into this matter prepared by the Investigating Officer, Simon Mansell, dated 19 December 2012 and consider that this matter can be determined on the facts as set out in his report without the need to refer to a panel.
I have also had full regard to the comments of the Independent Person, whose views accord with those of the Investigating officer.
(i)for the reasons set out in the investigating officer’s report, the subject member was subject to the Code of Conduct at the time of the conduct to which the complaint relates and particularly her attendance at the meeting of Truro City Council when the complainant’s planning application was considered;
(ii)the subject member had a prejudicial interest in the item of business considered by the meeting at Truro City Council because of the proximity of her home to the application site;
(iii)the subject member declared an interest in that item of business, albeit it was not recorded correctly, but failed to absent herself from the meeting after she had spoken on the item of business relying on paragraph 12(2) of the Code of Conduct. The subject member has acknowledged that she should have absented herself from the meeting, albeit she did not vote;
(iv)in relation to the other aspects of the complaint it is, in my view, neither possible nor appropriate to seek to attribute greater weight to one or other of the differing versions of events in the absence of any independent evidence. Accordingly, it is not possible to make any determination as to whether any other paragraphs of the Code of Conduct have been breached.
What happens now?
This decision notice is sent to the Complainant, the member against whom the allegation has been made and the Clerk to Truro City Council.
Additional help
If you need additional support in relation to this or future contact with us, please let us know as soon as possible. If you have difficulty reading this notice we can make reasonable adjustments to assist you, in line with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 2000.
We can also help if English is not your first language.
pp Matthew Stokes
Corporate Governance, Property and Commercial Group Manager
On behalf of the Monitoring Officer
Date:3 May 2013